Professional Documents
Culture Documents
People Vs Manlunsing Etal
People Vs Manlunsing Etal
Felipe Malunsing
63 SCRA 493 Legal Ethics Duty of Counsel to Be Adequately Prepared
Manuel Villegas together with Malunsing et al were charged for murder. At the opening of the trial, Manuel Villegas
was appointed a counsel de oficio, Atty. Geronimo Pajarito. Villegas however intimated to Geronimo and the trial
court that he has his own lawyer. However, the court proceeded without giving Villegas the opportunity to present
his own lawyer. The court then asked Atty. Pajarito if he wants to confer with his client but Pajarito replied I think I
know the case. Thereafter, trial began where the prosecution presented evidence against Villegas. No evidence
was presented in behalf of Villegas and he was not even called to the witness stand to prove his innocence.
Consequently, Villegas was convicted of the crime charged.
Now, Atty. Pablito Pielago [presumably Villegas true lawyer and supposed lawyer from the onset?] questioned the
conviction as he presented the above irregularities. He said that Villegas is an unlettered man and he does not
know the intricacies of court proceedings hence Pajarito should have been vigilant in representing him in court.
Pielago now wants the reversal of the conviction.
ISSUE: Whether or not the conviction should be reversed.
HELD: Yes, for there is a gross violation of Villegas constitutional rights. The Supreme Court noted that it is not
enough that a counsel de oficio was appointed, especially so as here, where the accused had indicated that he
wanted a lawyer of his choice, a decision prompted moreover by the fact that he had lost confidence in the
member of the bar thus designated. Nor is it to manifest respect for this right if the counsel de oficio thus named,
instead of conferring with the accused, would just blithely inform the judge that he was already fully prepared for
his exacting responsibility. It was unintended, of course, but the result could not rightly be distinguished from pure
travesty. The Supreme Court reversed the conviction but considering the gravity of the offense charged, it ordered
a new trial.